Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Arrah in Title Appeal No. 39/3 of 1974/76 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Arrah on 22.12.1973 in Title Suit No. 116/29 of 1969/73. 2. The facts of the case run in the very narrow compass. The plaintiffs-appellants filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property. The suit plot no. 421 measures 1.36 acres recorded in Khata no. 89 of village Randadih P.S. Shahpur and it belonged to defendant no.1 Sukhari Tewary alias Raj Ballabh Tewary of village Belauti. A part of the suit land was mortgaged for a sum of Rs. 2800/- by two registered deeds dated 1.8.1964 and 6.8.1965 and he further obtained a loan of Rs. 150/- by executing a Hand-note dated 10.11.1968. But subsequently, it was agreed between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. that the plaintiffs would purchase the suit land for Rs. 5655/- and accordingly, a sale deed was executed on 8.12.1966 and it was registered. The plaintiffs had paid the sum of Rs. 2705/- in cash to defendant no.1 and the sum of Rs. 2950/- was retained by the plaintiffs for redeeming the mortgage bond and for paying the promissory note holder. According to the plaintiffs, they, subsequently, paid back the creditors and entire consideration money of the sale deed was paid off. But it would transpired (sic) afterwards that defendant no.1 executed two ante-dated sale deeds in favour of defendant no.5 for defeating the right of the plaintiffs which had already acrue to them in the suit property. The two sale deeds were fraudulent, collusive and without consideration. There was a compulsory registration case before the District Sub-Registrar, Arrah and by his order, the two sale deeds were registered. It is the further case that the plaintiffs further learnt that defendant no.4 Laungi Devi wife of defendant no.1 brought a collusive partition suit against her husband and three sons in which a compromise decree was passed showing the area of plot no.421 K to be only 45 decimals whereas its correct area was 1.36 acres and that the decree of the said suit was not binding on the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs title was clouded because of the ante-dated documents and the subsequent suit filed by the wife of defendant no.1 and hence the suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest with consequential reliefs. Defendant no.1 Sukhari Tewary alias Rajballabh Tewary filed a petition dated 18.8.1971 supporting the case of the plaintiffs. He stated that he had already given possession in favour of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Defendant no. 5 is a contesting defendant. By filing written statement, he contended inter-alia that defendant no.1 had executed a contract of sale dated 2.7.1966 for transferring the land to him for a consideration of Rs. 4000/- and that defendant no.1 had received Rs. 800/- as advance out of the consideration amount and after the stamps were purchased on 10.11.1966 and defendant no.1 executed two sale deeds on 21.11.1966 for Rs. 2000/- each in favour of the contesting defendant. However, defendant no.1 did not appear before the Registrar for compulsory registration of the two deeds and ultimately, those had been registered by the Registrar. The defendants have alleged that the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiffs is in subsequent point of time and has not conferred any title on him. 3. The original court held that as the two deeds of defendant no.5 were earlier in point of execution, the plaintiffs purchase would be construed to be a subsequent purchase and hence, the suit was dismissed. The appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs, the decision of the original court has been altered by holding that as the defendants sale deeds although were allowed to be executed earlier but those were not registered in ordinary course and were registered in the process of compulsory registration by the Registrar, thus the validity of the deeds of defendant no.5 would be from the date of presentation of the sale deeds before the District Sub- Registrar for the purpose of registration and in that way, when the deeds were presented after the sale deeds being executed in favour of the plaintiffs on 8.12.1966, then even if the deeds of defendant no.5 were dated 21.11.1966, their purchase should be construed as subsequent purchase and hence, the plaintiffs suit was decreed by reversing the judgment of the original court and hence, the present appeal. While giving judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, the learned appellate court has referred to the decision of a Single Judge of this court reported in 1974-PLJR-747 wherein a distinction was made regarding sections 47 and 75 of the Indian Registration Act about the compulsory registerable document. While admitting this appeal, a Single Bench of this court vide order dated 21.1.1983, had formulated the following substantial question of law: "Whether the court of appeal below was justified in allowing the appeal without reversing the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff was a bonafide subsequent purchaser without notice of the earlier sale in favour of defendant no.5." 4. The dispute is between the purchase of the plaintiffs and that of defendant no.5. The plaintiffs purchase is dated 8.12.1966. It was executed on that date and registration was also made on that date while defendant no. 5s two purchase deeds are dated 21.11.1966 and those had been registered during the month of March, 1963 (sic) in the process of compulsory registerable document as contemplated under the Indian Registration Act. 5. It has specifically been provided under section 47 of the Indian Registration Act that the document shall be operative from the date of its execution even if the registration had been done on a subsequent date. Section 75 of the Indian Registration Act deals with the proceedure when the executant on denial of the execution, does not appear before the Sub-Registrar for registering the document and when the same is being registered through the process of compulsory registration, Section 75(3) enumerates that when a deed has been compulsorily registered then such registration shall take effect as if the document has been registered when it was first duly presented for registration. Under the said provision of section 75(3) of the Indian Registration Act, a distinction was made by a learned Single Judge of this court in 1974-PLJR-747 which was referred by the appellate court. There, the learned Single Judge has held that in case of compulsorily registered document, the effect of the document shall be from the date of its first presentation before the Registrar and from the date of execution. In that way, it has been held that section 75(3) gives a different vent to what has been provided under section 47 of the Act. In that way, it has been held that section 75(3) gives a different vent to what has been provided under section 47 of the Act. According to the learned single Judge, the operation of a deed which has been compulsorily registered, shall take effect or come in operation only from the date of first presentation for registration and not from the date of execution as per section 47 which can be construed only for the deeds which are registered in ordinary course. 6. The whole concept of the learned Single Judge seems to be misconceived on proper construction of section 75(3) of the Indian Registration Act. In that provisions, the date of registration has been construed for a compulsorily registered document to be the date when the document was first presented for the purpose of compulsory registeration. This provision has got no conflict with the provisions of section 47 of the Act which clearly enumerates that a document either registerable or not, shall have the effect from the date of its execution. The same view has been taken subsequently by a Division Bench of this Court as reported in 1987 PLJR 251 . 7. In the present case admittedly, the execution of the document of the plaintiffs is on a subsequent date than that of the execution of the two sale deeds in favour of defendant no.5. It was also evidenced from the side of defendant no.5 that before the date of execution of the two sale deeds, there were prior agreement between defendant no.1 and defendant no.5 and that the stamp papers for the purpose of writing of ths documents had been purchased just prior to the execution of the two safe deeds. The original court had taken proper view of law regarding the construction of date of operation of a document is the date of execution of the documents and validity thereof. But the same has been reversed by the appellate court on a wrong interpretation of law on the basis of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court. That judgment is not a good law in view of the Division Bench judgment and I have already mentioned that either due to over-looking or for some reasons, section 75(3) of the Act had not been properly construed by the learned Single Judge and as such, came to an erroneous decision. That judgment is not a good law in view of the Division Bench judgment and I have already mentioned that either due to over-looking or for some reasons, section 75(3) of the Act had not been properly construed by the learned Single Judge and as such, came to an erroneous decision. Thus, I find that this appeal has got much force. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the appellate court is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree of the original court is hereby upheld and confirmed. The appellant shall get the cost throughout.